|
|
SUPPORT ZPOST BY DOING YOUR TIRERACK SHOPPING FROM THIS BANNER, THANKS! |
Post Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
04-28-2013, 10:57 PM | #23 | |
enthusiast
48
Rep 1,695
Posts |
Quote:
10,000 was a slight exaggeration, but there are quite a few s54's making power to 8800 on stock internals. If the rod bearings had damage prior: revved when cold, wrong oils used, etc, the bearings old go at anytime. Even at 7500 rpm's. As I stated,I did not invent the best shift points. I explained carrol shelby's ideas, which I have successfully used. Your explanation said nearly the same thing explained differently. They done "sorta correlate", they do |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-28-2013, 11:57 PM | #24 |
///M-fanatic
193
Rep 3,885
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 12:09 AM | #25 | |
My other car is on Mars
636
Rep 3,124
Posts |
Quote:
Then I found this thread. Turns out it's normal. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 03:50 AM | #26 | |
Second Lieutenant
6
Rep 222
Posts |
Quote:
Whilst it would be nice to have access to a constant stream of data taken at much greater frequency, an OBDII datalogger doesn't make up the time-stamped data that it receives from the ECU. As an analogy: a film shot at 30 frames per seconds (i.e. a series of still images) will produce a movie which appears to give seamless transitions but if you only look at only the 1st and 16th frame each second is the information appearing in those still images less valid? I think not. If the Z4MC's ECU says that at 298.767secs the ATP is at 75.7% and at 299.323secs the ATP is at 31.8% I believe it, and in all probability, at the time in between those two time stamps, it is most likely that the ATP is reducing from 75.7% to 31.8%. Whether the closure is linear or not is unknown to me but you imply that you have this answer. What is it? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 03:56 AM | #27 |
Second Lieutenant
6
Rep 222
Posts |
You've deleted your earlier posting and replaced it with the above. I've previously invited you to make your constructive comments in the thread which you consider to be so funny- I've yet to see them. It's quite clear that you do not understand the way that the torque curve effects the calculation of horsepower, which is a derived figure.
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 04:14 AM | #28 | |
Second Lieutenant
6
Rep 222
Posts |
Quote:
In that thread, they report that at 4k revs the throttle opens from 75% to 100% in the E46M3, but that's not what happens in the Z4MC. I wonder if there's an scope for this in the Z4M? As an interesting point I've also discovered that in 1st gear, even in Sport Mode, the ECU doesn't let the AFR below 14.7:1, which is presumably another torque limiting strategy? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 09:22 AM | #29 | ||
Brigadier General
218
Rep 4,726
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 09:43 AM | #30 |
Second Lieutenant
6
Rep 222
Posts |
So why won't you draw a sketch plot to demonstrate your point for us all to see? I'm not asking for it to be absolutely exact, just the general shape of the typical plot you'd expect to see for ATP versus engine RPM. I am sure there are others besides me who would like to see this information.
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 10:13 AM | #31 |
Lieutenant
67
Rep 501
Posts |
What O-cha is saying is that, if your data is being sampled once per second, for any 2 second period you will have 2 data points per measure. So assume that at 5 seconds (x=5), you measure y=100. Then at 6 seconds you measure y=0. You could "connect the dots" and believe that at x=5.5, y=50. However, this is not necessarily true, since you are assuming that the data between these 2 points is linear... but the truth is that you don't know this. It could stay at y=100, it could dip down to y=0 at 5.5 seconds, but since it's not measured it's not correct to say that after 5 seconds, the y value decreases. It could drop at 5.5 seconds, 5.99 seconds, etc.
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 10:45 AM | #32 | |
Second Lieutenant
6
Rep 222
Posts |
Quote:
It appears to me that O-cha is saying that this is wrong and I'm simply asking him to do us all a favour and draw us a better graphical demonstration of what he says really happens. I'm just a bit surprised by his reluctance to be more helpful. Personally, I can't see the point of posting to say something is wrong without being prepared to properly demonstrate what you claim is correct. Last edited by exdos; 04-29-2013 at 10:55 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 01:36 PM | #33 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
80
Rep 1,663
Posts |
Quote:
An image of a different engine should illustrate: The orange line represents the throttle. Do you get it now? To get a clean simple measurement like you are showing us, you'd have to average out the measurements with a much higher sampling rate. The MSS70 ECU does 64 million operations a second. Your numbers are meaningless.
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 02:15 PM | #34 |
Major General
424
Rep 5,329
Posts |
damn.... tough crowd in here......
__________________
Z4MR VT2 - Clubsport build.
Multi award winning Detailing | Wrap | PPF specialists UK based - www.topwrapz.com |
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 02:24 PM | #35 | |
Banned
56
Rep 1,739
Posts
Drives: 2008 Z4MC
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Seattle, Vancouver
|
Quote:
Regardless, I have ZERO interest in listening to you defend 370rwhp from a simple air intake. I think you're deluded, and you DashDyno has been proven to misrepresent the #'s. If O-cha wants to take up the fight, I'll get the popcorn. 450ish crank HP from a home-made intake isn't reasonable in the least, so there's no reasonable discussion to be had. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 02:34 PM | #36 |
Second Lieutenant
6
Rep 222
Posts |
??????????????
If you are referring to the top plot also with the green plot (Engine RPM?) there's not a lot of difference to what I've posted except it's on a different scale x/y scale. We know that the MSS70 ECU operates at incredible speed, but to say that a series of time-stamped data points recorded form this ECU are meaningless is just plain ridiculous!! Engineers in the old days would have given their right arms to have had the data that can be obtained by an OBDII datalogger. |
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 02:54 PM | #37 | ||
Lieutenant Colonel
80
Rep 1,663
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
298.767 - 75.7% 299.323 - 31.8% How could these be meaningless? well if they looked like this: 298.750 - 99% 298.755 - 92% 298.760 - 100% 298.767 - 75.7% 298.770 - 93% 298.775 - 82% 298.780 - 98.9% 298.785 - 72.3% 298.780 - 94% 298.775 - 92% ... If we average all those samples, we get 89.88%. That would be a better value for what the average throttle position is during these samples in this example. Yet because you are sampling randomly, you could get a high value: 100%, a low value 72.3% or anything in between, so you have no idea how big your error is or in what direction.
__________________
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 03:19 PM | #38 | |
Second Lieutenant
6
Rep 222
Posts |
Quote:
If the throttle position was changing position every 5 milliseconds in the way that you suggest, then they would be flapping at the same rate as a bee's wing. Are you seriously suggesting that this is happening? A cable throttle with EFI doesn't flap like that so why should the drive-by-wire system? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 03:46 PM | #39 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
80
Rep 1,663
Posts |
Quote:
O-cha, if your'e still around, how do the ITBs fit into all of this?
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 04:29 PM | #40 |
///M-fanatic
193
Rep 3,885
Posts |
Exdos...what everyone is/has been trying to tell you is that the software you're using simply does not provide a sufficient sampling rate, and therefore your resulting numbers are skewed. Plus, if you use any common sense, it would dawn on you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to gain that much power just from an intake swap. Having more (unpressurized) air going into the combustion chamber will not yield much if anything. Hence why forced induction is typically used if people want to squeeze more power out of the engine without upping the displacement, etc.
What you're claiming though Exdos is that your intake alone yields more power than the same car with ALL bolt-ons + ECU tuning to take advantage of said modifications. That should in itself throw a red flag |
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 04:33 PM | #41 |
Second Lieutenant
6
Rep 222
Posts |
You've previously said to me: "Your numbers are meaningless" because OBD datalogging produces time-stamped data at just over 0.5 secs intervals for 4 PIDs. Then you gave a "completely made up example" to explain why you are correct. I do understand your point, absolutely, and I've simply shown you that your explanation is highly unlikely to happen because the throttle bodies are more likely to remain still at WOT and will not flap. It amazes me that many on here are so quick to dismiss OBD datalogging but nobody can produce the definitive proof of what the naysayers are claiming.
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 05:05 PM | #42 | ||
Second Lieutenant
6
Rep 222
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Therefore if the torque can be increased and that peak torque occurs as far above 5252rpm as possible, then this has a very significant effect on the calculated HP. I have simply found ways of achieving this using well known science. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
04-29-2013, 05:22 PM | #43 |
Banned
56
Rep 1,739
Posts
Drives: 2008 Z4MC
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Seattle, Vancouver
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|